PDA

View Full Version : Where is Wand?


Ibar_Harry
11-14-2006, 11:31 PM
Well, you can wonder what Kubiak was thinking when he released Wand? Now, you have to wonder even more about his comments with respect to having Wand back. With the situations we have had with our line, Kubiak's statements about having Wand back have to be total BS......

edo783
11-14-2006, 11:33 PM
Wand is on the Titans.

Ibar_Harry
11-14-2006, 11:46 PM
Searched the Web and you are correct. ESPN doesn't show that as yet. Well, at least he's getting a shot somewhere. It will be interesting to see how he does. The Titans have line problems as well.

JohnGalt
11-15-2006, 06:11 AM
http://www.titansradio.com/cgi-bin/b...urb=news653080

The Titans added depth along the offensive line, agreeing to terms with with former Texans tackle Seth Wand Monday.

The Tennessean reports the team placed wide receiver David Givens on injured reserve to make room for Wand.

The former third-round pick of the Texans worked out for the Titans last week after Daniel Loper went down with a spleen injury. Loper will miss the rest of the season.

Wand started 18 games for the Texans.



We missed the boat.

HJam72
11-15-2006, 06:19 AM
We shouldn't have gotten off it in the first place.

JohnGalt
11-15-2006, 06:24 AM
I only hope at this point that Kubiak realizes that he screwed up and he has learned from it.

Hopefully in 2007 things will be better. I sound like a Cubs fan.

TheOgre
11-15-2006, 06:30 AM
While I don't like all of Kube's moves. I do like the fact that he is cleaning house and bringing in "his" guys. He might make a couple of mistakes along the way, but he seems to have made more wise ones (this draft class, Sage, passing on Bush and starting Weary ) than dumb ones (Putzier, Cowart and Wand).

the wonger need food
11-15-2006, 07:56 AM
He might make a couple of mistakes along the way, but he seems to have made more wise ones (this draft class, Sage, passing on Bush and starting Weary ) than dumb ones (Putzier, Cowart and Wand).

How was letting Wand go a bad move? He was unemployed until last week so there wasn't a whole lot of demand for the guy.

And the Putzier and Cowart signings were not bad at the time. Both simply got outplayed by very above average rookies. I would bet that Putzier has had a lot to do with Owens' quick maturation.

Texans Horror
11-15-2006, 08:13 AM
Wasn't a whole lot of demand for any tackle until this week. Of course, if certain coaches had any foresight, they would have retained Wand and never been in this situation.

the wonger need food
11-15-2006, 08:43 AM
Wasn't a whole lot of demand for any tackle until this week. Of course, if certain coaches had any foresight, they would have retained Wand and never been in this situation.

There are a finite number of roster spots and it came down to Wand and Salaam. Obviously Salaam outplayed him in training camp and brought a lot more leadership to the team. And Wand was not eligible for the practice team.

How would you have retained Wand?

michaelm
11-15-2006, 08:46 AM
Wasn't a whole lot of demand for any tackle until this week. Of course, if certain coaches had any foresight, they would have retained Wand and never been in this situation.


There's always a demand for tackles if they're better than what you've got.
If 31 other teams thought they'd stick with their second and/or third stringers instead of bringing in Wand, that may indicate something about Wand...

profan
11-15-2006, 08:49 AM
Well, you can wonder what Kubiak was thinking when he released Wand? Now, you have to wonder even more about his comments with respect to having Wand back. With the situations we have had with our line, Kubiak's statements about having Wand back have to be total BS......

I find it funny how you guys get upset when we release a member of one of the worst lines in NFL history. Ibar, Kubiak has already upgraded this team keeping subpar lineman on the roster will not make this team better. He's doing his best to protect your boy Carr. You should appreciate what he has done and layoff your constant bashing of the coach. He's doing a good job.

nunusguy
11-15-2006, 08:54 AM
There are a finite number of roster spots and it came down to Wand and Salaam.
How would you have retained Wand?
Keeping Salaam instead of Wand was one thing, but choosing Bedell over Wand is something that many of us are still scratching our heads about ?

Texans Horror
11-15-2006, 09:03 AM
He was unemployed until last week so there wasn't a whole lot of demand for the guy.



As opposed to Pearson, who posters are already getting giddy over? The guy was out almost two years.

There's always a demand for tackles if they're better than what you've got.

If 31 other teams thought they'd stick with their second and/or third stringers instead of bringing in Wand, that may indicate something about Wand...

Teams are loathe to replace o-lineman during the season. You don't see the roster turnover there that you see at other positions.



How would you have retained Wand?

Not carrying 4 tight ends or two full backs leaps to mind. Offensive line is a NEED on this team. These others were luxuries in comparison.

----------------------

Kubiak said on the radio earlier this week they were going to call Wand. Maybe the Texans were just too late at this point?

Hervoyel
11-15-2006, 10:06 AM
There's always a demand for tackles if they're better than what you've got.
If 31 other teams thought they'd stick with their second and/or third stringers instead of bringing in Wand, that may indicate something about Wand...


Not really. Sure if they're far better than what you have then you make room for them when you can but nobody is sitting at home at this time of year who's head and shoulders above the guys who have jobs right not.

During the season the 53 man roster really limits the personnel moves you can make. Few if any teams can afford to bring someone in who can't contribute at all for a few weeks until he gets somewhat familiar with their offense. That's why you see teams bring back camp cuts over players who are sometimes a bit better when the injury bug strikes. Players cut in camp have worked in your system, they can be plugged in quicker than complete newcomers.

Remember in 2003 when we lost most of our defensive line? I think Jerry DeLoach was the only guy who made it through the season. We signed all those fat street free agents to fill the gaps and that's about all they did for most of that year. I used to call them the floppers because it seemed like they couldn't make it through a series without somebody coming out to get some oxygen or needing to be helped off the field. Man those guys were out of shape! They were just about useless until they got some time in our system and by the end of the year they were almost a "low to middle" NFL quality defensive line.

Wand will be fine. He should still be here IMO but there's nothing we can do about it now. I hope he gets a fair shot in Tennessee and I think I've got a player on the Titans that I am interested enough about to follow. That's a first.

TheOgre
11-15-2006, 12:57 PM
How was letting Wand go a bad move?

I like Wand better than Salaam myself. Even if you like Salaam better, there is absolutely no way that you don't re-sign Wand instead of Bedell (just as nunusguy said). Wand is all-around better and already knows the system. That was a mistake IMO. Bedell was ripped out of the starting lineup faster than you can say, "Victor Riley".

TheOgre
11-15-2006, 01:02 PM
And the Putzier and Cowart signings were not bad at the time. Both simply got outplayed by very above average rookies. I would bet that Putzier has had a lot to do with Owens' quick maturation.

Putzier has been a failure on the field as a FA pickup, and your "hunch" on his impact on Owen's is nothing more than conjecture from the sound of it. It was a bad signing.

Cowart has been truly bad for about 2-3 years. Imagine what this defense would be like with Cowart in there instead of Demeco.

I like the majority of Kubiak's moves. The net effect is definitely positive, but he hasn't been perfect. Take off the battle red glasses wonger.

Vinny
11-15-2006, 01:04 PM
Putzier has been a failure on the field as a FA pickup, and your "hunch" on his impact on Owen's is nothing more than conjecture from the sound of it. It was a bad signing.

Cowart has been truly bad for about 2-3 years. Imagine what this defense would be like with Cowart in there instead of Demeco.

I like the majority of Kubiak's moves. The net effect is definitely positive, but he hasn't been perfect. Take off the battle red glasses wonger. I don't think Putz was a bad signing...I just think our fans overvalued him. He wasn't all that in Denver. Cowart was a run down only linebacker before he came here and some people speculated that he wouldn't make the team since he had limited lateral movement. I don't think Cowart is in the league.

thunderkyss
11-15-2006, 01:10 PM
Even on the field, what has he done to be considered a bad signing?? He hasn't dropped any balls that I recall..... he hasn't given up any sacks....

to me, it sounds like either the QB or the coach is not getting him involved. I've been pleased with what I saw, when he was in the game.

hollywood_texan
11-15-2006, 01:31 PM
You always need to factor in the cap hit when understanding why a player was cut.

Look at it this way, it may be more beneficial to get less of a player with a much smaller cap hit than a player that is better but doesn't show value for the money paid when applying his cap charge.

Look at as getting the most bang for you buck as it compares to the cap.

I don't know if Wand had a big cap hit, but it would make sense that you cut a guy if he doesn't carry his weight in relation to the cap burden.

As for Wand sitting out there for awhile, there are 32 teams with about 10 roster spots for offensive line, so it was probably going to take a little time before something opened up for him.

Texans Horror
11-15-2006, 01:45 PM
You always need to factor in the cap hit when understanding why a player was cut.

I don't know if Wand had a big cap hit, but it would make sense that you cut a guy if he doesn't carry his weight in relation to the cap burden.


Wand is league minimum for a veteran of his age, not even a million for a year. Pretty low cost for a backup if you ask me.

I don't think Putz was a bad signing...I just think our fans overvalued him. He wasn't all that in Denver.

This reminded me of my question to Broncos fans (Broncomania) when the Texans decided to make Salaam the starting Left Tackle. Some made the comment that he wasn't all that as a Bronco, which meant he would be a stellar Texan.

Marcus
11-15-2006, 01:55 PM
Well maybe I'm looking at it the right way, but I would tend to think that both Kubiak and Sherman would be the better judge as to who is better . . . Wand or Bedell.

I get the feeling there is a small sentimental attachment among some regarding Wand.

Hulk75
11-15-2006, 02:03 PM
Well, you can wonder what Kubiak was thinking when he released Wand? Now, you have to wonder even more about his comments with respect to having Wand back. With the situations we have had with our line, Kubiak's statements about having Wand back have to be total BS......

Wando is gone and hopefully does not ever come back........

Like I said Wand good as run blocker as you can find.
Wand the pass protecter- Terrible.

Texans Horror
11-15-2006, 02:05 PM
Well maybe I'm looking at it the right way, but I would tend to think that both Kubiak and Sherman would be the better judge as to who is better . . . Wand or Bedell.

I get the feeling there is a small sentimental attachment among some regarding Wand.

I always thought the offensive line coach would be the best judge, but the guy he wanted starting at left tackle is now backup at Tennessee. Besides, Kubiak said that he was going after Wand, so I guess in the end he was good enough for the Texans.

CLTEXAN_FAN
11-15-2006, 02:16 PM
Like I said Wand good as run blocker as you can find.
Wand the pass protecter- Terrible.

He has got to be better than that peice of crap Todd Wade

HJam72
11-15-2006, 02:19 PM
I did not think Wand did so bad at pass blocking last preseason. In fact, I have said (in other threads) that I thought he was our 2nd best LT last preseason and I was referring more to pass blocking than run blocking when I said it.

It has been said that some of us may have sentimental attachments to Wand, but I think some of us have unfair oppinions of him based on how bad his pass blocking was as a brand new rookie playing left tackle in 2004--UNDER PENDRY--AND WITH MCKINNEY AT CENTER.

edo783
11-15-2006, 02:38 PM
Keep in mind, regarding Wand, that Kubes wants the back up tackle to be a swing guy, not just an LT or a RT, but able to play both if needs be. They tried Wand out at RT towards the end of camp and shortly there after, he was gone. Might be that he didn't do well at RT and that limited his worth in Kubes eyes.

Marcus
11-15-2006, 02:45 PM
Well, I think the same ones who have sentimental attachments to Wand are the same ones who are calling out others for unfair criticism.

What is going on with Wand is the same as what happened with other players who fans had a sentimental attachment. They always overrated the these players.

Wand was cut because other players were better than him. Pure and simple. And I have not read or seen anything to the effect that Kubiak would have made Wand the starting tackle even if he was still available to be signed.

He's gone. Time to move on.

Vinny
11-15-2006, 02:49 PM
Well, I think the same ones who have sentimental attachments to Wand are the same ones who are calling out others for unfair criticism.

What is going on with Wand is the same as what happened with other players who fans had a sentimental attachment. They always overrated the these players.

Wand was cut because other players were better than him. Pure and simple. And I have not read or seen anything to the effect that Kubiak would have made Wand the starting tackle even if he was still available to be signed.

He's gone. Time to move on.
It's not like this team hasn't had a history of cutting players that go on to a pro bowl or start for other teams. Steve Foley, Marlon McCree and K Wright are three good examples of not being good enough for the Texans but start on better teams. Aaron Glenn is probably better than Lewis Sanders as well.

HJam72
11-15-2006, 02:51 PM
Well, it's not like Wand was ever going to start over Spencer when he's healthy. I just really wish we had him right now at this specific juncture, that's all.

Marcus
11-15-2006, 02:55 PM
It's not like this team hasn't had a history of cutting players that go on to a pro bowl or start for other teams. Steve Foley, Marlon McCree and K Wright are three good examples of not being good enough for the Texans but start on better teams. Aaron Glenn is probably better than Lewis Sanders as well.
And I believe that all happened on sombody else's watch, right?

I don't know about you, but I've been pretty pleased with new FO's decisions regarding draft/FA/waiver pickups so far.

Vinny
11-15-2006, 02:57 PM
to me, your argument was...don't question authority. They know better. I just came back with....they are human too....their moves don't always work out.

nunusguy
11-15-2006, 02:58 PM
It's not like this team hasn't had a history of cutting players that go on to a pro bowl or start for other teams. Steve Foley, Marlon McCree and K Wright are three good examples of not being good enough for the Texans but start on better teams. Aaron Glenn is probably better than Lewis Sanders as well.
One team, but now 2 regimes. Lets just hope under the Kubiak/Smith duo,
better decisions are being made regarding which players should be retained and which ones should be cut.

Marcus
11-15-2006, 03:05 PM
to me, your argument was...don't question authority. They know better. I just came back with....they are human too....their moves don't always work out.
I understand that, but I can't figure out why that everyone thinks that it was the wrong move keeping Bedell over Wand, other than for sentimental reasons I mean.

TheOgre
11-15-2006, 03:48 PM
I understand that, but I can't figure out why that everyone thinks that it was the wrong move keeping Bedell over Wand, other than for sentimental reasons I mean.

Perhaps we actually think he is a better player?

I like Spencer more than Wand, but I was disappointed that they didn't keep Wand on as his backup. He is a good run blocker and while he struggled with pass blocking, he was improving. Bedell is worse at both IMO.

Hulk75
11-15-2006, 08:19 PM
He has got to be better than that peice of crap Todd Wade

Thats true.

Cruuuuuuuz
11-16-2006, 12:51 AM
Overall, i like the changes Kubiak and the new coaches have made...
Hey, We're 3-6! Way better than last year and even Mario might pan out....We prolly had the best damn draft in the league!

IBAR is right about Kubiaks quotes about Wand being BS,
but lets not harp on the FACT that getting rid of Wand was a screwup....
as the season goes on and injuries occur...that truth becomes more and more evident.

The fact that he's with the Titans...tells me something went on behind the scenes and whatever that was.....as fans we will never know. Maybe some reporter should ask Sherman...i bet he knows...anyway, as Texan fans...we gotta let it go.

FREE FRED WEARY!!!!
we need to make t-shirts!

TexHorns
11-16-2006, 03:22 AM
I find it funny how you guys get upset when we release a member of one of the worst lines in NFL history. Ibar, Kubiak has already upgraded this team keeping subpar lineman on the roster will not make this team better. He's doing his best to protect your boy Carr. You should appreciate what he has done and layoff your constant bashing of the coach. He's doing a good job.

I have to agree with you 100%. I was glad to see Wand go and it would make me sick to see another coaching staff hang on to a bunch of worthless or unproductive players taking up roster space when they already had their chance. It was time for change even if Wand had a potential upside. I couldnt stand to watch one more season with that %$#%^$ pathetic oline.
The oline has been a MAJOR problem from day one, Dom didnt do anything about it and that was his real downfall. Face it the Wand, Boselli, Gaffeney, P-Burnt, Matt Stevens and loser days are behind us.

HJam72
11-16-2006, 04:05 AM
I was glad to see Wand go and it would make me sick to see another coaching staff hang on to a bunch of worthless or unproductive players taking up roster space when they already had their chance.

So instead, we cut him and kept a couple of MORE worthess or MORE unproductive players taking up roster space. He wasn't going to ever be a starter on this team (when everybody was healthy), but he was our 2nd best LT last preseason (now that he's not a rookie with crap for coaches and more crap for a center). It doesn't matter how bad he was 2 yrs. ago as a rookie. What matters is how good he is now, and that's 2nd best LT on this team as of the the day he was cut. You can't just go around cutting guys because they never lived up to starter status or expectations and then leave yourself with something even worse coming off the bench. You wanna know why he was cut? He was brought here by the previous regime and, if the present regime stretches the heck out of reality, they can actually say that he is not even the 3rd or 4th best player at LT. In reality he was 2nd best, by a small margin. It's the same reason that Morrency was traded. He wasn't quite the best (in their opinion), so suddenly he's not even good enough to stay around.

Now, I realize we've got the swing tackle argument going on. That's probably got a lot to do with it. I won't argue with that, even though I disagree with it in general.

My point is simply that we'd be better off right now if we still had Wand. I think that should be pretty obvious. We might feel like he grossly underfulfilled (new made up word) his expectations from being drafted, but we still needed him at least for this year.

HJam72
11-16-2006, 04:10 AM
Oh, I did want to say that I agree with those saying we had a really good draft overall, etc., etc. I'm not complaining about the overall body of work. I just feel that this one issue is hurting us this season.

JohnGalt
11-16-2006, 05:53 AM
So instead, we cut him and kept a couple of MORE worthess or MORE unproductive players taking up roster space. He wasn't going to ever be a starter on this team (when everybody was healthy), but he was our 2nd best LT last preseason (now that he's not a rookie with crap for coaches and more crap for a center). It doesn't matter how bad he was 2 yrs. ago as a rookie. What matters is how good he is now, and that's 2nd best LT on this team as of the the day he was cut. You can't just go around cutting guys because they never lived up to starter status or expectations and then leave yourself with something even worse coming off the bench. You wanna know why he was cut? He was brought here by the previous regime and, if the present regime stretches the heck out of reality, they can actually say that he is not even the 3rd or 4th best player at LT. In reality he was 2nd best, by a small margin. It's the same reason that Morrency was traded. He wasn't quite the best (in their opinion), so suddenly he's not even good enough to stay around.

Now, I realize we've got the swing tackle argument going on. That's probably got a lot to do with it. I won't argue with that, even though I disagree with it in general.

My point is simply that we'd be better off right now if we still had Wand. I think that should be pretty obvious. We might feel like he grossly underfulfilled (new made up word) his expectations from being drafted, but we still needed him at least for this year.

Amen!!

TheOgre
11-16-2006, 07:52 AM
I don't think Putz was a bad signing...I just think our fans overvalued him. He wasn't all that in Denver.

I thought Putzier would get some time between the 20's and Daniels would be the red zone guy. I didn't think he would have 35 catches and roughly 500 yards like he did the past two years, but I did expect him to have more than 5 catches for 70 yards at this juncture. I was thinking he would have around 20 catches for about 250-275 yards by year's end, but he is on pace for only 9-10 catches for about 125-140 yards.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=3768

HOU-TEX
11-16-2006, 09:50 AM
I thought Putzier would get some time between the 20's and Daniels would be the red zone guy. I didn't think he would have 35 catches and roughly 500 yards like he did the past two years, but I did expect him to have more than 5 catches for 70 yards at this juncture. I was thinking he would have around 20 catches for about 250-275 yards by year's end, but he is on pace for only 9-10 catches for about 125-140 yards.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=3768

I was and still am for the Putzier signing. I believe the only reason he isn't playing as much is because Owen is the better rounded TE. Owen can block. Putz can't(see block against Kearse). I think Putz and Bruener have both helped Owen be as good as he is.:shades:

Osso
11-16-2006, 10:59 AM
We need 2 tights, its that simple. Putzier is a great 2nd tight end.

Wand was cut when we had a heathy O-line...and couldn't swing, again it's that simple.

real
11-16-2006, 11:06 AM
Depth is a good thing...Putz and Bruener are good depth...

Honoring Earl 34
11-16-2006, 11:43 AM
Anybody want to bet Wand gets cut from the Titans ?

JohnGalt
11-16-2006, 12:09 PM
I heard from an inside source that Wand was called by the Texans Sunday. He turned them down in favor of the Titans. I can't say that I blame him.

I doubt the Titans cut him. It takes too long to bring a new linemen into the fold. I believe this is why you didn't a flurry of activity of OL signing after the cuts were made. If they are going to invest a few weeks into him, they'll hang on to him for the rest of the year.

Texans Horror
11-16-2006, 01:02 PM
I heard from an inside source that Wand was called by the Texans Sunday. He turned them down in favor of the Titans. I can't say that I blame him.

I doubt the Titans cut him. It takes too long to bring a new linemen into the fold. I believe this is why you didn't a flurry of activity of OL signing after the cuts were made. If they are going to invest a few weeks into him, they'll hang on to him for the rest of the year.

Kubiak said he'd be after him, but Kubiak apparently has a history of wanting players to sit at home and wait for his call. I understand Kubiak was peeved that Joppru accepted a position with the Bears. I wouldn't be surprised if he was dismayed that Wand actually preferred to play under a new coaching staff/front office.

Besides, I don't think Wand would have fit well here. I understand that instead of starving himself the way Kubes wanted, he lifted some weights and got his weight back up.

Honoring Earl 34
11-16-2006, 02:11 PM
How does Kubiak have a history ... this is the first time he's been a head coach .

I hope Wand goes against Mario .

Texans Horror
11-16-2006, 02:19 PM
How does Kubiak have a history ... this is the first time he's been a head coach .

I hope Wand goes against Mario .

If it's happened in the past, he has a history of doing it. It's happened twice in one year. JMO, but I'd say that qualifies for the man having a history of doing it.

Marcus
11-16-2006, 03:08 PM
Kubiak said he'd be after him, but Kubiak apparently has a history of wanting players to sit at home and wait for his call. I understand Kubiak was peeved that Joppru accepted a position with the Bears. I wouldn't be surprised if he was dismayed that Wand actually preferred to play under a new coaching staff/front office.

Besides, I don't think Wand would have fit well here. I understand that instead of starving himself the way Kubes wanted, he lifted some weights and got his weight back up.
Are you just pulling all that stuff out of your ass, or are you going to provide some sources and links to back it all up.:challenge

Ibar_Harry
11-16-2006, 03:24 PM
Kubiak said he'd be after him, but Kubiak apparently has a history of wanting players to sit at home and wait for his call. I understand Kubiak was peeved that Joppru accepted a position with the Bears. I wouldn't be surprised if he was dismayed that Wand actually preferred to play under a new coaching staff/front office.

Besides, I don't think Wand would have fit well here. I understand that instead of starving himself the way Kubes wanted, he lifted some weights and got his weight back up.

Despite what some think, I think Kubiak has a big EGO.

JohnGalt
11-16-2006, 03:26 PM
Are you just pulling all that stuff out of your ass, or are you going to provide some sources and links to back it all up.:challenge

I have to come accept that there are several regular posters on this board that know people. If the poster has a high rep, I tend to give them the benefit of doubt concerning unnamed sources. I imagine that a regular poster who spews B.S. is going to be trashed on the board.

Texans Horror
11-16-2006, 04:01 PM
I didn't start listing sources when I posted this:

http://forums.houstontexans.com/showthread.php?t=24881

And I'm not going to start now. As for the information, you can take it or leave it.

HJam72
11-16-2006, 11:17 PM
I can see where Kubes might be a little that way with players, but only with players, not anybody else. :twocents: If you want sources, I will gladly post the same thing in a few other threads and link them in another post here. :)

kingh99
11-17-2006, 08:40 AM
Where's Wand? I heard he joined the Elephants on Ice Capades tour.

The only guy bowled over more than poor ole Seth was Moe from the Three Stooges.


/haircut